Evaluation of Wisconsin legislation on smoking in restaurants

• Published in: Tobacco control Vol. 4; no. 2; pp. 125 - 128
• Main Authors: Nordstrom, D. L., DeStefano, F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.06.1995; BMJ Publishing Group; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Group
• Subjects: Anti smoking movements; Chain restaurants; Cigarette smoking; Fast food restaurants; Legislation; Public health; Restaurants; Secondhand smoke; Smoke curing; Telephones; Tobacco smoking
• ISSN: 0964-4563; 1468-3318
• DOI: 10.1136/tc.4.2.125

Objective - To assess effectiveness of a 1984 state law requiring restaurants to seat smokers and non-smokers in separate areas. Design - Physical inspections of restaurants with face to face interviews of restaurant managers. Setting - College town in Wisconsin, USA. Subjects - 18 restaurants with more than 50 seats, chosen randomly from all 47 restaurants in the city. Main outcome measures - Managers' knowledge of the Clean Indoor Air Act, presence of required signs, and proportion of seats for non-smoking patrons. Each restaurant was categorised as having alcohol or not, chain or local, and fast food or table service. Results - All restaurants permitted smoking. One third were unfamiliar with the law, and three fourths lacked the required signs. Restaurants allocated an average of 53% of their seats for smoking. Fast food restaurants appeared to be more likely to know the law and to have legal signs. Restaurants without alcoholic beverages, chain restaurants, and fast food restaurants tended to be more likely to have large non-smoking areas. Conclusions - There is a gap between legislated prescription and actual practice. Laws that permit each restaurant to determine the size of its non-smoking area and have no provision for adequate monitoring of compliance may be ineffective. The findings of this and other similar surveys suggest that proponents of legislative strategies to reduce smoking in restaurants need to give more attention to policy implementation and evaluation.